lives but lost in their ability to be productive citizens and whether it's ptsd or whether it's an actual physical injury. you know, why did we lose those men and women and turn around and lose control over an area? and we can watch and tell the heat signature, the plume, what rocket launcher it came from and where it shot down a plane in ukraine, but we spent a lot of money, a lot of effort in iraq and yet we're blind, we're in a fog? i just find that hard to believe, especially with so much going on in the region, with what was going on in syria and isis and isil were doing. huge columns of vehicles headed toward mosul, how did we miss that? so that's a rhetorical question i don't expect you to answer, but i think it is important. i think americans are going, how did we miss this, and why did we spend so much money and loss of life in iraq to see what's going on now? why can't we do more?

i noticed in your statement you said we've set up the joc in baghdad. i'm glad we have. i just wonder why it wasn't set up sooner. you said, i think, six weeks ago it was set up. this thing has been going on for a while. why didn't we work with the iraqis to try to thwart that? i'm concerned about our friends in the kurdish region. i'm concerned that they're going to get surrounded. we didn't lose a single american life in the kurdish region during the iraq war. not a single american. because they're friendly. so i want to ask this about the kurdish region. what's the administration's position on kurdish oil exports and what actions are we advising american energy companies that might be operating with the krg to take? >> our position on energy exports from iraq is very clear. we support getting as much oil out of iraq as possible and on to international markets from north to south.

we also support doing that in a way that reinforces the overall stability of all iraqi regions. we have an obligation to say when people ask that there is legal risk for taking oil without an agreement. we work very hard to broker an agreement and actually had an agreement on the table that was a very good one as early as four months ago that would have gotten all of the oil out of the kurdish north flowing and had revenues coming from the south to the krg. that agreement didn't succeed for a number of reasons, and one of which is that we're in the middle of a high political season in iraq. it was an election season. you had an election april 30th. now you're working to form a new government. i remain confident that in the process of forming a new government, we can work with all sides to have a solution to this very important issue. the budget that's being debated in the parliament right now in baghdad is about $120 billion budget. there's about $17 billion there for the kurdistan region. it's a decision the prime minister made to cut off salary

payments to the kurdish north because of this oil dispute. it's completely unacceptable and should be reversed. we made that very clear. so again, we're working very closely with our kurdish partners in the north and the government of baghdad to find a solution to this issue. and through the process of forming a new government, we have a real opportunity to do so. >> my time is expired. i thank -- >> will the gentleman yield for a minute? i wanted to follow up on a specific statement there. what i want to follow up on was the comments you made about having eyes in the air and the difficulty of that. now, in august of 2013 that is when a request was made originally by the government in iraq for assistance. in march of 2014, they actually delivered an official letter to the white house asking for help. it is certainly true that originally they wanted armed drones to do this work, but that

was a negotiating position, and they swiftly fell back to the position of, okay, you won't give them or sell them to us, then can you use them in order to hit these jihadist units? and all of this incurs long before june when mosul falls, right? so i just wanted to put that in context. unless there's something i don't understand here, mr. mcgurk. but that's from the entreaties or the discussions i've had. that was my understanding through this as we were trying to get these drone strikes on these units even before they came over the border in order to give some kind of cover for the infantry on the ground. >> again, the sequence was helping the iraqis with their hellfire strikes, with the information, and the fusion cells we set up. their request for our direct

support came in may. and i think as alyssa has spoken to, our ability to do anything effectively requires a much more granular picture on the ground. we frankly have that picture now. we did not have that picture as -- >> well, as expressed, we don't understand why you wouldn't because you've also got signals intelligence, you've got human intelligence, and frankly you had a green light there for eyes in the air once they delivered a letter to the white house of an official request in march of 2014. so this doesn't add up, but i will go ali berra the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses. i think it's disingenuous for us to lay what's happening in iraq as a failure here in america or as a failure of any particular administration here in america. i think our troops did

everything within their power to give iraq a chance. we shed blood. we spent billions of dollars to give iraq a chance. one of my staff members is an iraq war veteran, a wounded warrior, matt sakado. you know, just chatting to him, as veterans all around this country, are saddened by what they're seeing in iraq. they did lose their colleagues. they did lose many men and women, as we all did in iraq. but we gave them a chance. we really did. it's also tragic to see what's happening to some of the civilians that served side by side with our troops, supporting our efforts in iraq and the danger that they live under. so we really do have to do everything that we can to try to ensure their safety and serve their visas as we can. but this isn't a failure of american administration. this is a failure of iraqi

administration. and, you know, i think everyone in this body would be consistent that this is a failure of the al maliki administration. there were sunni tribal leaders that fought side by side with us in the surge that were made promises that were broken by al maliki. systemically dismantling some of iraqi's own defense forces in a way we saw what happened in mosul. and they fell apart. now, you know, i think ms. slotkin, in your own statement, you said there was no military solution in iraq. you indicated the iraqi people must do the heavy lifting on their own. can you expand on that and tell us what you think that heavy lifting would be? >> well, i think brett has spoken to some of the ideas that are currently being batted about to get towards that political solution. i think the point i would make,

you know, as we look towards any potential decisions the president makes for future action is, you know, we couldn't solve the iraqi political problems for them when we had 170,000 troops. we couldn't have solved them if we had kept in 10,000 troops in 2011. and we're not going to be able to solve them through our military support today regardless of what we decide to do. the iraqis have to get at the underlying political differences in their system. isil is extremely capable, extremely dangerous, but they are getting tacid support from the sunnis on the ground in these areas. it's critical the central government solve those problems so the sunnis turn away from isil and towards their government. >> and mr. mcgurk, in your assessment, if a new iraqi government was a more inclusive government that gave equal say to the kurds and the sunnis and gave them a voice, do you sense some of our former allies and some of these tribal leaders would, you know, take a different view on isil? >> we have to be very clear that

isil is a military force. so we have seen tribes try to take it on and they failed. we trained about 1,000 fallujahians in three months of training. in their first engagement trying to move into the northern reaches of fallujah, they lost. that's because isil is a highly sophisticated military organization. it's far better than the al qaeda in iraq we fought. in order for the awakening to really get moves in those days, it took a lot of effort on our part to degrade that effort, which allowed the tribal networks to rise. up and fight it. there will have to be some military pressure. statement, there has to be a new government with political accommodations to isolate isil. they have to run parallel to be effective. >> if we're thinking this through strategically, new

government forms in iraq that is much more inclusive. the sunnis within iraq become much more open to not supporting isil. our allies in the region potentially from the sunni side can also provide some support as well as, you know, looking at ways to cut off the funding and support of isil. would that be a logical thought-through scenario? >> yes, and i don't think sunnis support isil. there was an election on april 30th in which isil said anyone who votes, we're going to kill you. they were very clear about that. in ninevah province alone, we had almost a record turnout of 1.1 million people, all sunnis, voting for new leaders. isil threatens, they intimidate, they rule by brute force. and so that is one reason why they need to be confronted and isolated. but yes, that is a sequence. first, we have to continue to

find ways to pressure isil, but a new government providing a new platform and also with new regional engagement and we'll hope very much when there's a new government, and there will be, that the regional capitals fully embrace that capital so we can make end roads and regional integration which has not made many end roads over the last couple years. >> thank you very much. mr. kinzinger. >> thank you, madam chair. i just want to point out i'm a veteran of iraq. i spent a lot of time in balad, and it's sad to see this gone now. i'll be honest with you all. i think -- i mean, everybody is kind of not saying it, but what it seems like is the administration is just paralyzed. they just don't know what to do. there's this fear of getting involved in iraq again and getting sucked into iraq with this reality that the worst-case scenario in the middle east is playing out right before our very eyes.

frankly, this administration bears some responsibility for that. i'd also like to remind folks that in america, we threw out the articles of confederation. we had articles of confederation. we threw them out and drew up our constitution. political solutions are not something we can put in the microwave and expect to happen in a short amount of time. this takes time. what we're seeing right now with the encroachment and growth of isil is the worst-case scenario. therefore, this kind of narrative that we have to have a political solution before we do anything, i would much rather see a flawed iraqi state in which we could then work a political solution than to see isis in a capitulated iraqi state. mr. mcgurk, the chairman touched on this. does a march 2014 request exist to the white house for what could be included as air strikes? >> i will go check on all the correspondence we've had. >> you would know if a march 2014 letter was hand delivered to the white house requesting assistance for the iraqi

government. >> i have a letter from may in which there's a very clear and specific request. i think a lot of correspondence before that was not as -- >> so you're on -- you don't know of this existing. so you can get back to me if it exists, in fact. >> i'll get back to you and go chapter and verse with all the correspondence we've had. >> okay. and another question, you know, we talk about, we didn't have the intelligence picture. as something that flew isr, it's fairly easy to get that quickly. we should have had an intelligence picture from when the iraqi government was asking us for assistance in august. that should have been the time at which we said, let's get this granular picture. now we have it. so we have the official request in may. we have a granular picture now. what's the hold up? i think what the answer is, is not so much that we're still waiting for political solution. again, i think it's this idea that the administration simply is paralyzed and doesn't know what to do. meanwhile, that vacuum is being filled by iran, by russia providing equipment to the iraqi government at a time we're sitting around saying, i can't believe they're taking this assistance. but they're fighting for the

survival of their very way of life. this is time where we have to say, you know, look, we're the united states of america with a very robust military capability. surely we can have the intelligence if we decided may was the time we were going to start looking at this. surely in three months we could have figured out a picture and begun to get engaged at that point. i also want to talk about the issue of hellfire missiles. it has a warhead of 20 or 18 pounds depending on what kind of missile it is and what its target is. these cessnas that have been retrofitted in iraq. an apache helicopter carries 16 of these hellfire missiles. the idea of an apache helicopter, one, taking out an entire camp of isil is unrealistic with 16 of these hellfire missiles. so the idea of a cessna with one, maybe two, hellfire missiles being the thing that destroys these camps in syria and in iraq is crazy. i think we need a robust military -- a robust air strike campaign on behalf of the united states. when our troops on the ground get engaged in combat, we're

very good. the marines and army are very good at fighting off the enemy. but the first thing they do is call for robust air support to help them win that engagement. this idea that the iraqi military melted away or that the iraqi military can take back ground with a hellfire missile is unrealistic when our own troops who are very well trained who have a great background and know how to fight wars call on a-10s, f-16s, b-52s to come in and do close air support in order to retake ground. so i just am saying that i'm renewing the call of the administration for massive manned military air strikes to push back this very, very bad cancer that's encroaching on the middle east. and also to target those in syria, to understand that the syrians, they are a very good fighting force, isis, and they're getting their training in syria and spilling it out to the rest of the place. so i do appreciate you all's service to your country. i appreciate you being here. i know it's a tough time. at that, i yield back.

>> thank you very much. mr. kissinger. ms. frankel of florida. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you to the panel for being here. i think two or three questions. first, could you explain what makes the isil terrorists such a greater threat than the other terrorists we hear about all the time? and what is the most immediate threat to the united states and to our allies? second, you know, i've heard a lot of questions which i think are appropriate as to, you know, what did we know, what could we have done maybe to have avoided the threat of isil in iraq and syria? my question is, how far back should we go? could you give me your opinion, if you have, is what our war in iraq, the invasion of 2003, how that relates to the rise of isil? because i think many of us in this country think that was an

act of malfeasance by our current president at that time and by our congress to send our country to war in iraq. so i would like you, if you could, answer those two questions, and if you have time to explain to me the difference between what might be -- some people say is paralysis versus first doing no harm. >> sure. so i can speak to the terrorist threat and why isil is particularly different, why we're paying such close attention to it. i think, you know, it's the territory they now hold, the self-financing that they are capable of. not getting donations and living off of donations but the self-financing, self-sustainment. the span of control, the capability of some of their fighters.

they are very, very experienced and war tested. and then the number of western passport holders we know have traveled to syria and are engaged with both isil and other groups there. isil's stated intent, we're coming for you, barack obama, rhetorically. and what we know to be active plotting in europe. so all those things in combination make them, i think, probably, it's safe to say, one of the most capable and the best funded group in the region right now and that's what makes it such a particular concern. >> i can talk a little bit about the history, although the questions you ask are really questions i think the historians will sort out. but isil is a group that we know. it's al qaeda in iraq. its first leader was zarqawi. zarqawi was in iraq before the war. zarqawi was the leader who really focused on this effort to spark sectarian conflict. if you go back to the writings at the time in 2004, it might

have looked preposterous at the time, but his plan has always been, and i testified to this in some detail in february, to establish a state. a state in iraq and syria. that has always been his focus. he said, we're going to do it three ways. we're going to attack the shia majority in iraq consistently. we're going to attack their marketplaces, their mosques, their playgrounds until they respond. and then, he says, we will unite the sunni ranks behind us. that has always been his strategy. he also will attack any sunni tribal sheikh, cleric, anyone who disagrees with him. that's very clear in his doctrine. also, he'll attack kurds to tear open that very narrow fabric which exists in the disputed territories in northern iraq. that was his stated strategy in 2004. it's now the strategy of al baghdadi. we know this organization. we fought against it. we know what their ideology is. what's particularly scary about it now is that it basically effectively controls the state. it has ambitions to take the mantle of the global jihad away from al qaeda central.

and ayman al zawahiri. so that is why it is a significant threat. that is why we're here and we thank you again for the time to testify about the situation today. and that's why we look forward to consulting with you to get a handle on it over the weeks and months ahead. >> not sure if you answered my question about the war in iraq. >> i have to say, congresswoman, i'll let the historians sort out what happened over the last 12 years. >> thank you very much. madam chair, i waive the rest of my time. >> thank you. mr. cook of california. >> thank you, madam chair. once again, ms. slotkin, i apologize, i'm usually the one that asks the question about the role of qatar, and you give me the same answer. i understand what's going on. i did -- i'm very, very concerned about maliki and his credibility, which to me is

absolutely zero. we got the folks that are representing camp liberty, ashcraft, and what has happened in the past. you cannot overlook that. what scares me even more was isil, isis and the fact that they went in there and they defeated four divisions. you know, in the history of the united states marine corps -- the marine corps has never had four divisions in one place at one time. they had six in world war ii. they had three on iwo jima. you had four divisions and you have a group that had pick-up trucks, ak-47s, what have you. it just shows that in terms of at least from a military person the total lack of credibility in

the maliki government. obviously, they don't have any trust, the military in the lack of federalism. so i'm very, very pessimistic on the future in terms of reconstructing the military, particularly when maliki, whoever is in there, if they're going to continue to go to the iranians for the revolutionary guards, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. and with hellfire missiles falling in the wrong hands, i'm just very, very nervous about this whole thing. it's been touched on a little bit, but i think from the united states that once again we have to recognize the changing geopolitical situation. it's already been discussed about jordan, and i think you're absolutely right. if we're not ready to defend

jordan or be there for them, we're in serious trouble. i'm a strong, strong supporter of kurdistan. we have to recognize that. and the point has been made about not one person, military person, has been killed in kurdistan. the other one -- and i've been bloviating, but i want to get your take on turkey, on how in the past they might be influencing them because they surround this area. and turkey lately -- and obviously turkey is a big, big player where they are also a member of nato and the fact that some of their behavior with the muslim brotherhood is very, very scary. could you address that, please? >> turkey remains a close partner of ours, and yesterday, in fact, at the state department we had almost an all-day dialogue with a very senior delegation from turkey about a whole host of issues, including isil. we recognize broadly that in order to really squeeze isil --

i mean, when we focused on al qaeda in iraq in the 2007 time frame, we called it an anaconda strategy to squeeze their finances, their foreign fighters, their everything. it's really three prongs. first, you have to shut off the infiltration networks. turkey plays a big part of that, but turkey will remind you a lot of the source countries in which global jihadist fighters are coming in to turkey and then entering into syria have to do their part. we have to stop these people before they get on the airplanes and stop them if they make it into turkey before they get into syria. that's critical. secondly, denying them a safe haven in syria. that's why we're focusing in on training the moderate opposition and finding a way to control space to isil in syria. and then helping iraqis control their sovereign space in iraq. that's extremely difficult, but that is the three-pronged approach that we have to try to take against this. and the conversations yesterday with the turks led by our deputy secretary bill burns and their undersecretary were focused upon that. i think we have a fairly common

understanding of the way forward with the turks on this. >> i don't think i have much more to add other than i think they are -- they've been living with the threat emanating from syria for a long time. they are extremely focused on it. they're extremely focused on what's happening in iraq. as a nato ally, we're talking with them every day. so i feel confident we know what they're focused on. >> okay. playing beat the clock. if you could comment again on the revolutionary guard and their influence right now and whether they have replaced the american military completely. >> we remain the partner of choice for the iraqis. no question about that. $11 billion into the reserve and $193 million just last week. again, i was there during this crisis. there was a major vacuum, and iran has stepped up in some ways to fill the vacuum in ways we made very clear to the iraqis are not particularly helpful. >> thank you very much. >> i yield back. >> appreciate it.

mr. conley of virginia. >> thank you, madam chairman. and welcome to our panel. i have to have say that in listening to many of your answers, i hear a lot of aspirations, and i share them too, but i'm not quite sure whether they're realistically achievable anymore. for example, ms. slotkin, you made a pretty forceful statement in response to one of my colleague's questions that there's no substitute for a strong central government located in baghdad. well, ms. slotkin, we've been there for 12 years. we've poured $1 trillion into the country. we've lost precious men and women in fighting there. what, pray tell, do we -- how does one achieve this strong, central, effective government in baghdad? >> i think this is what the iraqis are grappling with right now.

government, they will have some fundamental questions that they have to answer about the future of their state. brett has talked about some of the ideas that are on the table. >> i know, but i guess my question carried with it the inference that maybe we need to reassess. the vice president of the united states wrote an op-ed piece before he became vice president with lesley gleb, broadly dismissed at the time, in which he said, frankly, what ought to happen in iraq, what's likely to happen as well, is the sort of segmentation of iraq into three autonomous zones. a sunni dominated zone, a shia dominated zone, and a kurdish dominated zone. well, looking at the map today, that may be looked upon in retrospect as a more prescient view than was accepted at the time. maybe we have to give up on the

idea, after 12 years of trying on a strong central, functional government that holds sway over the whole country based in baghdad. >> yeah, i can't speak to the retrospective piece, but i can speak to, you know, what it would mean right now if somehow we decided to give up on a strong government in baghdad, centered in baghdad. who is in charge in that sunni-dominated area? some very, very scary people. while i think the idea may be interesting on paper, i just think in reality based on who is in charge in these large swaths of the country right now, it's just a -- it's a much less favorable option than having a strong government in baghdad. >> of course. i take your point. but, i mean, the question is whether we should continue to pour blood and treasure into that hope. at what point do we recognize we're going to have to at least modify that hope because it's not going to happen or not going to happen any time soon realistically.

because if we continue to pursue that policy, however noble and desirable, that is not realistic and is going to get us in a lot of pain and difficulty, that's not a good foreign policy. mr. mcgurk? >> one point, congressman. i think what i laid out in my opening testimony is a way forward that is focused upon the hard realities we face on the ground now. that's within the fabric of the iraqi constitution. that can harness their very significant national resources to empower local communities in order to deny space to these terrorist groups. and that is a model in which recognizes the principle of authority and federalism which is embedded in the iraqi constitution. were iraq to wish to develop more regions, such as the region that exists in the kurdish region, there's a process for doing that through the iraqi constitution. >> but mr. mcgurk, again, i agree with you. that ought to be how it works.

the maliki government has significantly alienated huge swaths of its own country. and in the process has opened the door for receptivity to isis. that's one of the reasons they've had so little difficulty in addition to the collapse of the iraqi four divisions which we helped train and equip. but they've lost a huge amount of political goodwill, if they ever had it, amongst their own countrymen. how do you restore that in a time frame that stabilizes the situation and can forcefully push back isis? >> one way to deal with that was we had to make sure the election happened and happened on time. that's something we focused very hard on over the last eight to ten months. the election did happen. it was a credible election. again, 14 million iraqis turned out to vote. they're now forming their government on their constitutional timeline. they chose a speaker. that kicked off a timeline for 30 days to choose a president. once there's a president, there's a 15-day clock to name a

prime minister, then 30 days to form a cabinet. the iraqis will get through this process along their timeline and will come out of it with a new government. again, we remain hopeful that that government will reflect a fairly broad consensus among the principal groups. right now the presidency, for example, is a choice the kurds are coming up with their nominee for the presidency. we hope to have that done soon. that will kick off the timeline to choose the prime minister. they happen to be in this political vacuum period they have to form a new government. once they begin a new government, it'll be a process of a very genuine dialogue about these very important issues you face. i hope with this committee we can be a part of that dialogue. and inform them as much as we can. >> my time is up. i just hope that the state department and the pentagon both hear bipartisan skepticism, good will, hope you're right, but the skepticism in this committee today is very bipartisan. >> thank you. and now we turn to mr. perry of pennsylvania.

>> thank you, madam chair. mr. mcgurk, in violation of u.s. and u.n. security council, what support is the maliki government receiving from iran that you know of? >> the question of sanctions under those provisions is something we're looking at very closely. it's a very complicated question, actually. >> all right. well, then just tell me what kind of material support you know of and then we'll try and figure it out from there. >> it's another question i think i'd like to follow up with you in a closed session. we can discuss in some detail. >> all right. ms. slotkin, do you know? >> sir, i really do think in a closed session we can much more specifically answer your question. >> all right. i get your point. well, knowing that iran is supporting the insurgency in yemen, is the yemen model sponsored in some sort by the president, is that realistic or viable for iraq?

didn't that -- isn't that fairly complicated, knowing that iran is essentially an adversary, an enemy of the united states that we're barely working with on a treaty regarding their nuclear program, which many americans, myself included, disagree with? what position do we put ourselves in, and how can we move toward trusting the maliki government, knowing they're relying on iran? can we expect the folks in the camp to receive better treatment knowing the government is the collaborating with iran? >> so i would say -- i want to make sure i understand your question about the yemen model and whether -- it seems like you're implying that the iraqi government is completely under the sway of the iranians. >> no, i don't think it's completely under the sway.

i think that considering the yemen model is viable and iraq is myopic and irresponsible and knowing that we're working at cross purposes, even mentioning that kind of indicates cluelessness at the point of the administration, in my estimation. i just want to get your feeling on it. >> again, i'm not -- i'm sorry. i'm not sure i'm completely understanding your question. if the question is, could the yemen model work in iraq, if that is what you're asking -- >> is it viable? could it work? yeah, it could work if we had different people in iraq in power and a different circumstance, in my opinion. but that's not the circumstance. so is it viable now? do you see the yemen model as viable now in iraq? >> i think, if i understand what you mean by yemen model, meaning working very closely with the central government -- >> yes. >> -- on a program, i think that first of all right now we are working with the iraqis on the ground. we have people there that -- our own people that need security and we rely on the iraqis to

provide part of that security. i think what we're trying to figure out is the answer to that question. by sending folks out and understanding the iraqi security forces and whether they are a viable -- >> seems a little irresponsible to come out with those kind of statements when you're trying to understand the circumstances. but moving on. so japan and germany essentially defeated by coalition forces, including the united states, probably didn't want us to stay, if they would have had their choice. i wasn't around then. i suspect you weren't either. let me ask you this. what responsibility does the administration have, understanding they disagreed with the united states government's actions in iraq, and i'm respecting that, but what responsibility do they have to secure the gains of the previous or any administration? do they have any? it's an opinion question for you. >> do the iraqis have a -- >> no, what is our administration -- >> what is our responsibility? i mean -- >> do we have any? >> i mean, we have invested incredible amounts of blood and treasure. my husband is an army officer. we met in iraq. as a country, we have invested

so significantly in that country, so of course we are invested in making sure that it continues as a viable state and doesn't become a breeding ground for terrorists. >> so having spent time there as i did, do you believe circumstances on the ground would be different had we maintained a s.o.f.a.? using the excuse -- and i see it as an excuse -- that the government couldn't get itself together enough to get support if it, we get that. they didn't want us there. that's a big surprise. didn't we have some responsibility to make sure it happened? i mean, the president's got a pen and a phone. if he'd have said, we're staying, what are you going to do about it? would things be different? do you think things would be different now if we would have stayed in some fashion, providing some security, providing some intelligence, providing some oversight of a fledgling government in a very difficult circumstance that we earned a victory for and

literally almost installed piece by piece? >> i think that things may have been different, but i don't know that we wouldn't be in a similar situation to where we are today based on the fact that we still lack political accommodation at the heart of it in baghdad. >> thank you very much, mr. perry. we turn to mr. weber of texas. >> thank you. mr. mcgurk, you said, quote, our objective is to ensure that isil can never again gain safe haven in western iraq, end quote. in your opinion, has isil, isis, whatever we want to call them, today operated with lightning speed? >> depends how you characterize lightning speed, congressman. >> in your opinion, would you characterize that as lightning speed? >> their advance through mosul caught them off guard, frankly. >> so baghdad, you cough taught something about blitzkrieg, wouldn't you agree? >> again, not sure quite how to answer that question. >> okay. >> isil's proven to be very capable. >> you remember how ted deutsch

asked you today, how confident are you the shiites can withstand repeated attacks? in your exchange with him, do you remember that question? >> i believe so, yes. >> okay. here's my question for you. how confident are you that camp liberty can withstand more attacks? >> again, i want to mention i visited camp liberty a number of times. >> have you ever stayed there? >> well, i have not stayed overnight there, but i have lived in trailers under repeated rocket attacks, so i know what that feels like. i have discussed that with them. >> do you think they'll all be killed before or after baghdad falls? >> again, congressman, i think that's a bit of a hyperbolic question. all i can say is -- >> but you don't think it's a real threat? >> they're located on the airport facility. they're located very near where we're located. >> you don't think it's a real possibility? >> i'm not going to -- again, i'm happy to come address the specific security apparatus we

have at the airport. >> okay. do we just write them off? >> certainly we don't write them off. it takes a substantial amount of time and energy focusing on the question. we have a senior adviser at the state department that does this full time. >> in your remarks earlier, you said, let me tell you why this matters. in one of the statements you made. does camp liberty matter? >> yes, of course it matters. that is why, again, we have a senior official at the state department dedicated to this issue full time, reporting to the secretary and he'll be on a plane tonight -- >> does it seem odd to you that we've got some -- in the current calamity on the border, we have some 60,000-plus crossing our southern border and getting, quote, refugee status or asylum over here but we can't get the same thing for camp liberty. does that seem odd? is that ironic? >> i think the administration's made a decision to bring in --

>> oh, they've made a decision all right. >> -- up to 100 residents of camp liberty into the united states. we believe that's a significant decision, which also should enable other countries to do the same. >> you see all the yellow jackets behind you? have you seen those? okay. you think that's an important issue for them? >> again, it's a very important issue to us. >> well, the actions don't seem to follow up that idea. you and i talked back on february 5th about t-walls and they began to put in place for a short time. seemed like they ended quickly thereafter. i would say not only is it an important issue for those who are here to support some action on the administration's part to help camp liberty but obviously it's also important for camp liberty. i think the administration has let them down. somehow we need to make that a priority. what is the answer for those camp liberty residents? how do we make this a priority

before it gets so bad that there's no hope for them? what's the answer to that? >> we're determined to do everything we can to get them out of iraq. their safety will depend on their getting out of iraq. that's why we have to find third countries to take them. we have made the decision to take in 100. >> should we encourage them to go over to mexico and come up to the southern border? >> again, if the mexicans are willing to take a number of residents, we would certainly support that decision. that's why we have a senior adviser focused on this question. he's gone to countries throughout europe, scandinavia, east asia, everywhere. we are making some progress, but we need to keep at it and need the support of the international community. that's why we've put $1 million into a new u.n. trust fund so even countries who might not have the resources are able to take these people in and bring them to safety. >> ms. slotkin, i have 30 seconds left. what do we need to do? >> sir, we're trying to figure that out right now, and that's -- >> you're trying to figure that

out? how long have they been over there? >> they've been over there since late -- mid to late june. i believe it is important to have a prudent, thoughtful, responsible approach before we just jump in, as someone who's worked on this -- >> it's not going to be very prudent if they all get killed before we do something now, is it? >> sir, i think that it is critical that we have a thoughtful regional approach to this problem before we jump in. >> well, i hope you will encourage the administration to get real thoughtful real fast. madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. weber. i'm pleased to yield to our new member of our committee, mr. claassen of florida. >> those from camp liberty, thank you for coming. you've made your point with the newest congressperson here. the two of you, thank you for coming. and thank you for your service to our country. and i'm sure this is not an easy moment for you. it's never easy to be at the

point of the spear in this kind of situation. so i respect you for coming and speaking straight and ask you to speak straight to me too. to use your words, mr. mcgurk, there are some hard realities here, right? i cannot overestimate those realities, people are dying. and these are people that don't deserve to die. and we've been there for a while. it feels like a perilous situation to me as our enemies consolidate friends, allies, and territory, which will certainly some day threaten our friends, israel, and maybe even us, if i'm getting the drift of what's going on here as the newcomer. and in that backdrop, it feels like we have bet on a team that is divided, right, maybe artificially put together, and a coach that we and you as an administration don't have full confidence in. that sounds like a bad situation for us to be in.

as i hear the talk today, it also feels that this lack of leadership, therefore, causes a deterioration in safety, and where there's a deterioration in safety, there's also a deterioration in culture. people losing lives and their own culture feels like a bad situation. and it threatens us in the longer term. if i'm capturing correctly what's going on here. and so in that vacuum of chaos,

you all are making decisions that will affect us eventually and people on the ground immediately. for my constituents, i think what would be good would be two things. number one, each of you give me a very brief summary for those that aren't experts that don't know all the missiles, that don't know all the things involved here, what is your summary way forward? where is the administration taking us? i don't want to get into partisan bickering. i just want to understand where we are going and where we will be six months from now. and then secondly, i would like to understand what can this committee do to help save lives and protect people. i am not interested in assigning blame. i think, mr. mcgurk, you said it best.

history will sort that out. i think it's more helpful if you tell us where we're going, and if we like that path, how we can help to get there. in layman's terms, so i can understand it and therefore take it to my constituents. i know this question is a little different than most, but does it make sense to you two? >> yes, congressman. i thank you for the very thoughtful question. again, i think explaining this to your constituents is critical about why this matters. a lot of the history on iraq, i think it can have a clouded view upon why this really continues to matter to the united states. >> but i want you to look forward with me. >> so let me just say three things. first, when this crisis began, as i stated in my written testimony, we immediately had to get a very precise, very accurate eyes-on picture on the ground.

and i just want to speak from my own firsthand experience, president obama immediately ordering a surge of intelligence assets, moving an aircraft carrier into the gulf, that was all done -- there's been a lot of talk about the 2011 s.o.f.a. that was all done under another permanent agreement we have with the iraqi government called a strategic framework agreement. that's a permanent framework, agreement, which allows us to assist the iraqis in ways that protect our interests. we had to get a clearer picture of what's happening on the ground. we're getting that now, and it'll become clearer in the days ahead. second, we had to get the political process on track. iraq just had an election. 14 million iraqis turned out to vote, almost a 62% turnout. a higher turnout than most elections all around the world. that showed the democratic aspirations of the iraqi people. we can't let them down. they want to see a new government formed. a new parliament has just convened in iraq with 328 members. they're now working to form a new government. we have to be behind them as they do that and encourage them to do so. as soon as that new government is stood up, and it will be set up, we need to embrace it and give it every chance to succeed. it is in both their interest and ours and it is also in the interest of all that we have sacrificed in iraq.

so that in a nutshell, we have to get a better picture on the ground, better eyes on to know exactly what's happening. we're going that. secondly, we have to get political process on track, which reflects not just the political elites but the aspirations of 14 million iraqis who voted. once that government is stood up, we need to embrace it and give it every chance to succeed. >> thank you very much -- >> so in summary, we wait until the new government is formed and then give that government full support. >> we're not waiting. we have people on the ground now doing significant things under the strategic framework agreement, which exists with the future iraqi government and the current one and the one before that. >> thank you very much. >> -- around doing -- >> now we will turn to mr. morino of pennsylvania. after that, mr. collins of georgia. >> thank you, chairman. good afternoon, the two of you. thank you for being here. unfortunately, and i don't mean to be facetious, but you two have drawn the short stick to be here and put up with us.

as i tell individuals that come and testify, you should be accommodated for that in your reviews. it's a tough group here. but i think we all have one intention in mind. it's just a different way we seem to want to go about it. there's no question, complex is not enough of a word to explain what is going on over there. and i understand the two of you have been over in iraq. so you know first hand what things are like. i visited there twice, short periods of time. ms. slotkin and mr. mcgurk, you can respond to this if you'd like to. several moments ago, you stated that there would be no difference if troops were left

in iraq, 10,000, pick a number, but troops left there. it would have no impact on what's taking place in iraq now to repel isil. did i understand that correctly? >> so let me clarify because this just came up a couple minutes ago as well. so it's not that there'd be no difference. i don't know exactly how it would have been. but i know that it wouldn't have forced the iraqis into a political solution that only they can make. >> okay. none of us know how it would have been, but i'm glad you clarified the political statement. >> the political piece. that's critical. >> it is critical. but i somewhat disagree with that assessment because i've read and studied this extensively. probably not nearly as up to date with it as the two of you

are, but i've been reading military reports, listening to experts from generals to commanders to tacticians, et cetera, and they disagree with that assessment. if there would have been troops left there -- and make no mistake about it. his wings on preventing him from doing what he should have done and didn't do. but it also would have an impact on isil as well. so could you please tell me what the difference is now since president obama has sent some troops over there now. if sending the troops over -- if not leaving troops there would really not have made a difference, what is the intent then behind sending troops now? would that not make a

difference? do you understand my question? >> i believe so. >> thank you. >> first, i just want to clarify that we have sent in an additional -- it's up to 775 troops, 475 of that total are for the security of our people and our facilities. >> the air embassy, the airport cetera. >> exactly. the other 300 are there to sessa assessnd and answer those very questio questions. i think the important thing that has changed since even just a year ago is the threat from isio that that poses to us, to our allies, our partners and the importance that puts on pushing back on them. i think if your question is wht more could we do? we should have left troops and now we're considering putting p them back in. we're trying to figure out if additional folks on the ground

would help in that fight. >> i'm ambivalent on this as d well because i don't want to see another american come home in a body bag. i've been on the ramp and seen two people sent back to my state. it's something i do not want to experience again. we did have the civil war under ti control by theme time the troop left iraq. do you agree with that aging assessment? >> i agree the sectarian violence that had been raging i iraq at the height of the war was significantly diminished, significantly by the time we departed. >> mr. a mcgurk, do you have an> comments on my questions? >> i just want to say, first, it's a tremendous honor to be oi before thiss committee all the time, the breadth of this >> i committee, it's t tremendous toe with you. >> thank you. >> i think in 2011, the requirements to get through something the iraqi parliament was not possible. i we still had the strategics

framework agreement. where we are now is we have been fully embraced to do training, to do advising, to do all sortse of things. what we're undertaking at the direction of the president issi w a very careful review of what we can do to be most effective.ulli i think hopefully in our future conversation, we'll have more concrete way for ward in terms i of what we have decided will bet the most effective. that's the conversation on going now. >> thank you very much.mr. mr. collins in georgia is recognized. >> thank you, madamcha chair. i appreciate it. looking back, i'd not going to do that, i won't do that with my experience. i'm say this in reference to mye friend from pennsylvania, i've e been there when they were put in body bags, and i'm appalled at . the fact that we did so little p in thet sofa agreement and don'r accept the political answer that politically we couldn't have gone it through.ich also there was a political issuo at home imin which the presiden made a promise to get out. there's political aspects on both sides. let's not kid each other, at

least in thiswe committee that we're doing that. to i'll be honest about that. i won't go back. i want to go forward. that's very much a concern for the price that, madam, you or tp shared, your own husband being over there. we spent a lot of blood and eavt treasure. to leave it like it is now is cc very, very concerning for those of us who were there. concer going forward it's a concern for me.an is iran has used its close relati relationship with iraq, and it e was growing toward the end air anyway, to use the air space to fly weapons to hezbollah and other partners in their fight in syria. the u.s. has time and time agaiw asked iraq to stop allowing iran to use the air space. what is the most recent activiti the obama administration has taken to have iraq cease these flights? >> we continue to discuss that issue in some detail with the iraqis. it's a very complicated questioi because it's unclear in terms om what is on specific flights.is

the o iraqis aren't going to completely shut down their air space. new it's sensitive information that i'd be happy to follow up in a different setting. >> i agree. a lot of conversations that may not need to be in an open forums but a lot of things we're dealing with the iranians on wi that we could use in pressure points and other sides that i'm very concerned about their ir continued involvement in this ns basically messed up soup of syria. i want to move to the president's 775 men, of which 475 areo there for additional embassy security and advisers to the iraqi authority. under what authority is the iri president deploying this force? >> as part of our -- 775 in in total were notified in the three war powers notifications that came over to the hill. >> article ii still adheres to

the war powers resolution.rticle they've been there for roughly 30 days at this point. after we reach the 60-day mark,c which authorizing force will the president use? is he going to try to use iraqi1 a umf? which one are we looking to use? >> i'll just say congressman exactly what the president has said, that any future decisions regarding our military posture in iraq will be done in close oe coordination with the ussed congressment one of the issues to be discuss willed be the specific legal authorizations through which the president has that inauthority. >> at this point in time the question would had to have come we're about 30 days away from using this. so the question would have had to at least be, we've thought about this, are you going to come bang and ask for a new authorization? this at some pointn? this time n to be asked and basically saying we'll think about it in 30 days,

frankly, is not satisfactory to me. >> smancongressman, there's a nl of legal authorities through which the president is able to r deploy military force around th. world.spec the specifics are to be determined within the administrationni and close consultation. >> let's discuss the iraq amf for just a second.secon if he intends to use the iraq wp aumf, at what point does it without congressional repeal, when is it -- this administration chose to withdraw in 2011, the authorization is or still valid, or are we just ep going to keep it ad infinitum? this is an honest question that needs to be discussed. how long will we have that on the table? >> it's also a legal issue which i would defer to the lawyers in the administration to provide specific answers. >> i'm sure>> they're not goingo beat down our door to come talkt about it. that's why you're here, unfortunately, for that. like i absaid, this is just

concerning. i believe we left with no real f strategy. for those of us u who deal withd on the ground are very g frustratedro about it. one last thing, before -- i ng appreciate you coming up the hill. i know you're limited by what you can or cannot say which is understandable but not s satisfactory. but to the liberty supporters i iraq, i would tell you the state department, the united states need to deploy all necessary o means to protect those there, it is our obligation, our right.ri frankly, studying it forever is not the option.on. that needs to stop.omeon the next time e someone toms to the committee, i hope they say here isdo what we're doing, nott that this is what we're looking at. with that, ith t think there's u of big questions, madam chair that are left, especially

concerning use of force. that an i'd like to have a healthy discussion about that and not es just "well, we'll get to it later." i'm an attorney as well. w yes, there is a lot of legale at options here. we need to decide what are we going to do it under and not t s make it up on the fly. >> thank you so much, mr. you f collins. thank you mr. engel, and thank you for the panelists and the audience and the media.d. with that, our committee is adjourned. thank you. sunday on book tv's in depth, former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul has written more than a dozen books on politics and history. join the conversation as he takes your calls, e-mails and tweets live for three hours sunday, august 3rd at noon eastern and tune in next month for author, historian and

activist, mary francis berry and supreme court expert joan business cubic. in december, american enterprise institute's arthur brooks, in depth on c-span tv's book tv, television for serious readers. we're live on capitol hill on this wednesday morning. a look at the issue of gun violence against women will be the topic of this hearing. the senate judiciary committee is hosting it. the committee will hear from witnesses in health care, law enforcement and academia about possible improvements to the violence against women act as well as a personal story from someone who has experienced gun violence in his family. committee member sheldon whitehouse will be serving as the acting chair of the hearing. there is a chance that the hearing will go into recess at about 10:45 so members can attend a series of votes. it should get under way in just a moment, live coverage on c-span3.

good morning everyone. the hearing will come to order. i'm delighted to see you all here, and i welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming. i welcome my ranking member, the distinguished senator from iowa. i welcome senators klobuchar and blumenthal from minnesota and connecticut. i have one procedural announcement which is that we

evidently have a vote scheduled at 10:45. so towards the end of that vote i plan to -- and senator hirono from highway', nice to see you. i plan to adjourn the hearing or recess the hearing briefly to allow us to catch the end of one vote, the beginning of the next and reconvene. that will probably take about 15 minutes total, just so you all know. on june 18, 1999 carmen cruz was watching television with her 8-year-old son travis when her ex-boyfriend, frederick escobar broke into her apartment and calmly walked toward her carrying a pillow. when he was just a few feet away from ms. cruz, mr. escobar pointed a gun at her, pointed at her and pulled the trigger. travis watched as his mother collapsed, felled by a bullet shot by his own father. ms. cruz spent hours in surgery

while doctors removed the bullet from her abdomen. she was hospitalized for three weeks and wore a colostomy bag for almost two years following the shooting. today ms. cruz is a passionate advocate in rhode island's domestic violence community, but her scars serve as a constant reminder that as a survivor she is one of the lucky ones. american women are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in any other industrialized country. as this chart shows, the red line, which you may not be able to see, stands far beyond any other industrialized country. put another way, women in the united states account for 84% of all female firearm victims in the developed world. let me repeat that. women in the united states account for 84% of all female

firearm victims in the developed world. of all the women murdered in this country, more than half are killed by family members or intimate partners. in fact, when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, it increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. protecting women from gun violence by domestic abusers should not be and has not been a partisan issue. in the late 1990s congress passed important laws prohibiting the possession or purchase of firearms by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or subject to domestic violence protective orders. these laws which were part of the violence against women act in an amendment authored by the late senator frank lautenberg complemented the prohibitions on convicted felons and passed congress with broad bipartisan

support. these laws have saved lives. in states with rigorous background check laws, 38% fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners. but they are not enough. current law prohibits domestic abusers from possessing guns only if they are or were married to the victim, if they have lived with the victim or if they have a child in common with the victim. dating partners who have been convicted of domestic violence offenses are not covered. the most recent data shows more domestic abuse is committed by dating partners than spouses. closing the dating partner loophole would save lives plain and simple. there are other steps we can take as well. these include requiring universal background checks and helping states collect and share the data necessary to ensure that those who we already agree should be prohibited under existing law are, in actual practice and fact, prohibited when they try to purchase

firearms. along these lines, i'm willing to work with anyone who wants to strengthen the national instant criminal background check system or nics to ensure it operates as congress intended it to. nobody on this committee has been working harder than senators blumenthal and klobuchar to shine light on the role of guns in domestic violence and address loopholes that allow abusers to kill, injury and threaten their victims. i know we'll hear more about their initiatives and i want to thank them both at the outset for their commitment and their efforts. i also would like to thank chairman leahy for his leadership in reauthorizing the violence against women act last year and for his longstanding recognition of the role of guns in domestic violence. finally, it bears mentioning that this is not a hearing about the second amendment or the right of law abiding americans to own firearms. nobody on this committee wants

to deprive individuals, women or men, from legally owning guns, and none of the solutions we're here to discuss involve doing that. what we are here to consider is how gun guns in domestic violence situations threaten american women and how best to ensure that those who should not possess guns do not possess guns. i understand there are a number of domestic violence survivors and advocates here with us today. i would be honored to recognize them right now if they wouldn't mind standing up. [ applause ] >> thank you. i would also like to submit the statements of our chairman, senator patrick leahy, of christie salters martin, bonnie

campbell, laura ponce, katie ray jones, every town for gun safety and the national center for victims of crime into the record. without objection they will be added to the record. thank you all for your support of this effort and your courage. i would like to thank all the witnesses for participating in the hearing and turn the microphone to my distinguished member senator grass ling. >> bonnie campbell is a former attorney general of the state of iowa. mr. chairman, we're here to discuss an important subject. thanks to our experts who agreed to be panelists for us. all of us want to see the federal government take appropriate action to assist in fighting domestic violence and especially domestic homicides. i have met with many victims of domestic violence over the

years. i feel compassion for the mental and emotional injuries they have suffered. you particularly feel that when you talk to people that have experienced that. they told me of the fear they confront, and want to take effective action against perpetrators of violence against women. today i'm one of the lead republicans in a group of bipartisan senators who have come together on a bill to address sexual assault on our nation's college campuses: but to me, all domestic homicides are a tragedy. it does not matter how the victim died. 45% of the domestic homicides now do not involve guns, a figure considerably higher than in the 1980s. in 1996 i had the pleasure of voting for the lautenberg amendment. those convicted of domestic violence, misdemeanors were prohibited from owning firearms. those are those against whom

permanent restraining orders were entered because of domestic violence. for these prohibitions to be effective, obviously records of the convictions and restraining orders must be entered into the national instant background check system, and the chairman just spoke about his interest in that, for that to be an effective system. so it distresses me that even now all these years later, according to the center of american progress, quote, only 36 states have submitted any domestic violence convictions to the index. of these 21 states have submitted 20 or fewer of those records in an even smaller number of states have even submitted records regarding restraining orders. 19 states submitted domestic violence restraining orders to the index and of these states submitted ten or fewer. end of quote. i note rhode island has

submitted exactly zero misdemeanor domestic violence records to nix and exactly zero domestic violence records. for delaware, 0 and 0, hawaii 3-0, illinois 1-0, minnesota 16-2. new york, 0-10. iowa ranks near the top of the states in this regard. i can confess to you we still have to do a better job in my state. 79% of the records submitted come from three small states. as the report says, quote, if all states submitted records of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions at the average rate of these three states, we can project that there would be two and nine-tenths million records in the nics index in this category, more than 40 times the number currently submitted, end

quote. this means that large number of prohibited persons under the law today can purchase a firearm through legal channels because the background system check fails to identify them. our nics system is full of holes with respect to the gun prohibitions, greatly reducing the effectiveness of background checks. last year senator cruz and i offered an amendment to legislation before the senate that would have helped fix the nics system. our amendment would have improved state comply ans with nics reporting for mental health records. it received the most bipartisan support of any similar legislation, but it didn't move because it didn't receive the 60 required votes. we should do the same with respect to persons who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes and subject to permanent restraining orders. we should be able to gain bipartisan support to enact legislation of this type.

that's mott the majority's approach. there are two bills before the committee on domestic gun violence, one from senator klobuchar expands the definition of prohibited person to include dating violence behind the cohabiting relationships in current law as well as to add convicted stalkers to the list of prohibited persons. another by senator blumenthal also expands that relationship and would make those subject to temporary restraining order entered without notice to the alleged abusers of prohibited persons. a significant problem exists with the completeness of background checks under the law. it is hard to believe that expanding the universe of prohibited persons whose records will not show up when a background check is performed will reduce gun homicides. i fear that false hopes are again being raised. in many states few persons are

convicted of misdemeanor stalking. in maryland, for instance, zero convicted of that crime last year. one in arkansas, five in new mexico, making these offenders prohibited persons will not accomplish very much even if their records make it to the nics which is a questionable assumption. these bills would expand retroactively the definition of prohibitive person. but they will also make actual individuals who allowed to own guns criminals retroactively, not by virtue of their crime, but the passing of the legislation. who is going to spend the time and the personnel to go over every domestic violence conviction record and examine the relationships between the parties to determine whether they fit the definition of these bills? who is going to actually input those records in the nics? suppose someone determines erroneously that a prior conviction was for conduct against a dating partner, what recourse will the individuals

have to demonstrate that he is not a prohibited person? how will guns actually be taken from that prohibited person? how soon would an officer be diverted from another law enforcement activity, removing those guns? the restraining order provisions could pose some problems. in a large percentage of cases, temporary restraining orders issued without notice to a defendant did not lead to permanent orders. yet the constitutional rights of the accused could be taken without due process. that person will not know that he or she is a prohibited person if during the brief period the order is in effect, law enforcement should show up to take away a gun. we should also be very skeptical that the temporary order will be entered into nics in time to stop someone from passing background checks. making existing nics records more complete is far more likely to make difference in domestic violence homicides, especially gun homicides than the bills the

committee is considering. i understand domestic violence advocates ask the majority to hold a hearing on domestic violence homicides many months ago but were repeatedly put off. for instance, the klobuchar bill was introduced more than a year ago but only as we're about to head out of time with few legislative days remaining has that hearing taken place responding to the request of advocates: only as the number of days until the election grew short did the committee schedule a hearing. the committee has not held a markup for bills for two weeks now. had the majority been serious about reducing domestic violence we had the time to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution. there was a real opportunity in this congress for bipartisan effort to combat intimate homicides of all kinds. that opportunity i believe has been squandered.

the bill before us, the committee today deal with a problem, keeping currently prohibitive persons from owning firearms. i hope that going forward we will work together to find bipartisan well thought out practical ways to protect women and men from violence of all kinds. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sure we will, senator grassley, and i think this hearing will help advance that cause. because senator klobuchar and senator blumenthal have both shown such leadership in this area and have bills in this area, they have requested make an opening statement. i'll recognize the two of them for opening statements. first senator globe shar and then we'll proceed with the witnesses. >> thank you chairman house, senator leahy for holding the hearing and to senator blumenthal for his work in this area. tragically we've had a number of major shootings that have killed multiple people over the last

few years in our country. from newtown to nevada, we've seen there's still more to be done in terms of closing loopholes in our background check system and looking at mental health issues. i would point out some of the issues raised by senator grassley are good ones about the record keeping, some of that would have been helped by the manchin-toomey bill which contained penalties for states and grants to make it easier to enter in this data. in states that do require background checks for private handgun sales, 38% of women are shot to death by former partners. as a former prosecutor i've seen firsthand how domestic violence and sexual assault can destroy lives and tear apart families. for eight years i ran an office of over 400 people. i was charged with protecting domestic violence victims and for enforcing the gun laws we had on the books, enforcing the laws involving felons in

possession of a gun was one of my major priorities for those eight years. one of the things i learned as a prosecutor is that there's still more work to be done. i was reminded of this over the christmas holidays in 2011 when i went to one of the saddest funerals i've ever attended for officer shawn schneider, a young lake city police officer with three children. his department had received a domestic violence call from a 17-year-old victim. it was someone she dated. officer schneider just doing his job showed up at the door that day. he was wearing a bulletproof vest, but no vest could have protected him when the perpetrator shot him in the head and killed him. at the funeral in that church were his three children. only a week ago the officer had been there with the family at the church nativity play. that day he was in the front in

a coffin and his three little children walked down the aisle of the church. and the one thing i will never forget was the little girl in a blue dress covered with stars. that's what this is about. last year the women of the senate stood together to reauthorize the violence against women act. the bill signed into law included the provision i worked on with former republican senator kay bailey hutchison that strengthens federal anti is stalking laws. passing that bill was a critical step in protecting women, but there's more to be done. a recent report found that 57% of recent mass shootings involve domestic violence. that's why last july i introduced, along with senator her roane know, the domestic violence and stalking victims protection act. our bill really does two things. our common sense bill would help protect stalking victims and

keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people that talk. it makes sure that stalkers can't get guns. many states are already starting the do this on a bipartisan basis with democratic and republican support, including my own state. one in six women have been stalked during their lifetime. stalking is often the first step in an escalating pattern of criminal behavior that crull naets in physical violence. the department of justice reports that 76% of women who are murdered by intimate partners were first stalked by their partner. second, our bill would make an important change to expand the definition of victims who are covered. right now people who aren't married and haven't either lived together or had a child together are covered under the current definition of intimate partner. they're vulnerable because their stalkers and abusers are legally able to obtain firearms despite having committed a domestic violence crime or being subject to a permanent restraining order. our bill fixes this problem by

expanding gz the definition of intimate partners to include dating partners. many states have already done this. we're simply bringing the federal law in line with what many states have already done. i've been proud to stand up with this bill with former representative gabby giffords and her husband, astronaut mark kelly in support of this bill. like gabby and mark, in our home state of minnesota, we value hunting and the outdoors. if it's not duck season or pheasant season in minnesota, it's deer season. when i looked at doing this bill, i always thought of my uncle dick in his deer stand. would this do anything to hurt him in the deer stand? answer is no. this bill is about preventing a person with a documented history of domestic violence or stalking or mental illness from having a firearm. that's it. i know senator blumenthal has been working on these issues as

well, especially for dating partners and temporary restraining orders, and i want to thank him for his leadership. one of the things that justice mccaffrey said in his testimony is our bills look to strengthen current domestic violence laws to bring them more in line with the current laws that many states have dealing with crimes of violence towards women and same sex partners: these bills are simple. they're designed to focus on an area where we know we've seen rampant violence. i want to thank all our witnesses for being here and i hope our colleagues can join us in supporting these bills. one of the reasons, senator grassley, that we waited to do this hearing is i've been trying to get a republican co-sponsor on this bill. i've been very close several times. ive that's the reason we've waited to get it done.

>> senator blumenthal. >> thank you 123459 tore white house for convening this shearry and spearheading and advocating measures to stop domestic violence. i want to thank you in thanning our chairman senator leahy for allowing this to go forward. i also want to thank senator klobuchar who has been so stead fast and strong in advancing this cause. i'm proud to be working with her and to be supporting her bill as a co-sponsor, and i think our measures are very much complimentary. i want to thank also the other members of this committee including senator durbin and senator her roane know, senator feinstein and the late senator lautenberg for their leadership, really incomparable leadership in this cause and, of course, the many advocates around the country who are championing common sense sensible measures

to stop gun violence and domestic violence. the two together are a toxic deadly combination. women are five times as likely -- more likely to die from domestic violence when there are guns in their household. i especially want to thank the survivors, the loved ones of victims who are here today. i know how much courage and strength it takes for you to be with us. but your presence is so powerful and meaningful, far more eloquent than anything i could say here or anywhere else. i want to say a particular thanks to a connecticut family who are here, mary and doug jackson. their daughter lori was a victim

of domestic violence. but she chose not to accept it. she displayed the courage that her parents taught her, and she decided to break with it. as many of you know that decision takes such enormous bravery and resoluteness. she broke with her husband. she went to live with her parents. she took with her her 18-month-old twins. she left her abusive husband and she decided to begin a new life. lori's act of courage should have liberated her, should have freed her. instead, she became a victim again, and this time fatally. her estranged husband tracked

her down in her mother's house and he used the gun that he was still legally allowed to possess to gun her down and to seriously injury her mother, firing bullets at her that almost mary jacks jackson. mary and doug jackson are with us today. i'm so deeply grateful to you for doing that. lori jackson sought successfully a temporary restraining order which should have protected her. the law failed lori jackson. the judge granted that restraining order after determining that her husband posed a clear threat to her safety and the safety of her

childr children. even after that determination lori's husband was still able to keep the gun that killed her. even if he hadn't possessed that gun, he could have legally purchased a new one. even at the moment of heightened rage when he learned she had left and was seeking that restraining order, in most states somebody subject to a temporary restraining order can lose access to his house, to his children, to his car. but under federal law he could still keep his guns. somebody might be considered too dangerous to see their son but not too dangerous to buy a handgun. because of that loophole in our law abuse victims are least

protected by the laws of our nation at the moment they are in the most danger, at the moment when they are most likely to be physically harmed because of the rage and rath of their estranged spouse or intimate partner. they are less protected than any other time. i've offered legislation to close this loophole and require a period after the domestic abuser becomes subject to a temporary restraining order. during that period when a judge has found that someone posses s possesses -- someone poses a threat and issues a temporary restraining order, the subject of that order should be barred from purchasing or possessing a gun. and the justice system should be helping the potential victim.

unfortunately and tragically and unacceptably most victims are still at the mercy of their abuser's rage, despite the kind of courage that lori jackson demonstrated in breaking with an abusive spouse. i've also introduced a measure, the gun homicide prevention act, to make sure that there are incentives and resources and grants available to states so that they will enforce these laws. these states are provided with grants under this legislation that encourages them to get illegal guns out of the hands of dangerous people and away from dangerous situations. it gives them the resources to do so effectively. enforcement, as i know from my own background as attorney general for the state of connecticut for a couple of decades and as a federal law enforcement officer as a united states attorney is the key to

making a law real in people's lives. right now federal law is a shadow of what it should be in protecting against gun violence and domestic abuse. i want to recognize again the thousands of men and women who have become victims as a result of this gaping, unforgivable loophole in federal law. their strength and courage will inspire me and i hope inspire this body just as lori jackson's parents being here today should give us the resoluteness and the strength to make this law real. i want to thank again them, the advocates who are before us today on this panel and, mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> senator durbin, do i understand you wish to make a

statement as well? >> mr. chairman, i know we want to hear from the panel. i want to especially recognize the attendance of mr. elvin daniel, a resident of illinois that will tell us the sad story of his sister. mr. daniel makes a declaration early in his statement that he is a conservative constitutionalist member of the nra, and he comes to us today still asking for protection for women like his sister and others who might have a chance if we pass the manchin-toomey bill to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and people mentally unstable . thank you, mr. daniel for being here. >> thank you, senator. will the witnesses please stand to be sworn. do you affirm the testimony you will give here today will be the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. i'll introduce the whole panel and then we'll go through their testimony. i will first introduce jacqueline campbell who is the anna d. wolf chair of the johns hopkins university school of nursing and the national program director of the robert wood johnson foundation nurse faculty scholars program. in 2012 she was recognized by the centers for disease control and prevention as one of 20 national leaders in injury and violence prevention for her work related to domestic violence. dr. campbell is on the board of droekt tors of futures without violence, served on the board of five domestic violence shelters and was a member of the congressionally appointed department of defense task force on domestic violence. she has published more than 225 articles and seven books and has extensive policy related service nationally and internationally related to women and violence and she has cut a vacation short

to be with us. so we are particularly honored that she is here. joyce lee malcolm will testify after dr. campbell. she is the patrick henry professor of constitutional law in the second amendment at george mason university school of law, holds a phd in history and specializes in constitutional law, legal history and law and war. malcolm is the author of seven books and numerous articles for legal and historical journals and the popular press. her book to keep and bear arms, the origins of an anglo american right was cited by the supreme court in the second amendment case of district of columbia very very ses heller. after her, sheriff smelling was elected as sheriff where he established the first ever domestic violence position in the state. he's served as a law enforcement

officer for two decades and revids in mount pleasant. i understand it's his son's 16th birthday today. we are particularly grateful for his participation in this hearing. it's a pleasure to have you with us, sheriff. i know your son must be very proud. next we will hear from justice mccalf free born in belfast, northern eye ireland, but called philadelphia his home since the age of five. he's made his career in public service, serve as a united states marine, a police officer for 20 years and a trial and now appellate judge. he's the lae ason justice across pennsylvania as well as liaison justice to the special court judges of pennsylvania. he's been at the forefront in creating veterans courts across pennsylvania. finally, already introduced by his senator, senator durbin, elvin daniel joins us from illinois where he is a salesman

for black hawk industrial. he is here to share the story of his sister zena killed by her estranged husband just days after she obtained a restraining order against him. unfortunately zena's story highlights only too well the urgent need for universal background checks. we are very grateful that mr. daniel is here and thank him for coming and for his courage. let me begin now with dr. campbell. we have a terrific panel. lead us off. thank you. >> senators, i am grateful for the opportunity to testify in these very important hearings today. i will present data from my own research on domestic violence homicide on women as well as other important research and national databases on this topic. i testify today as a citizen, as a nurse and with the endorsement of the american academy of nursing. the united states, as has been said, has a higher homicide rate

of women than all other westernized countries and amongst the highest rate in the world. this disparate is particularly pronounced of homicides on women committed by guns, in which the country the rate exceeds by 11 times the rate of that in other industrialized countries. much of this fatal violence against women is committed by intimate partners, although neither entirely complete nor would coding errors, the fbi's supplemental homicide reports are the most complete national database of homicide with information on the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. in the most recent data available from 2011, at least 45% of the murders of women were committed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband. if we only examine the homicides where the perpetrator relationship to the victim was identified, more than half, 54% of the homicides of women are

committed by a husband, boyfriend or former husband. there were ten times as many women killed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband as by a male stranger in that database. the majority of this violence is perpetrated with firearms. in the violence policy center analysis of those 2011 murders of women, there were 1707 females murdered by males in single vic i'm, single offender incidents of those incidents in which the weapon could be determined, more of those homicides were committed with firearms, 51%, than with any other weapon. women are also killed by partner or ex-partners when they are pregnant. in an important study on maternal mortality in maryland from 1993 to 2008 dr. diana chang and dr. isabel horen

examined medical records of women who died during the pregnancy in the first postpartum year. homicides were the leading cause of death to those pregnant women and immediately postpartum. firearms were the most common method of death, 61.8%. a current or former intimate partner was the perpetrator in more than half of those murders and nearly two-thirds of intimate partner homicide victims in this study were killed with guns. in a national study of pregnancy associated homicide, firearms again accounted for the majority of homicides and the majority of those perpetrators were not married to their victims. research my peers and i have conducted provides further insights into how firearm access and domestic abuse elevate the risk of homicide for american women and explain why existing federal laws restrict certain convicted domestic abusers from

buying or possessing guns. survey research of battered women indicates when a firearm is present, a majority of abusers will use a gun to threaten or injury a victim. in a study by susan sorenson and douglas leavy conducted with over 400 women in domestic violence shelters in california, two-thirds of the abused women who report add firearm in their home said an intimate partner used the gun against them threatening to shoot at or kill her. among the most available research on factors that influence a woman's likelihood of homicide is the national 12-city case control study of intimate partner homicide by a husband, boyfriend, ex-husband or ex-boyfriend conducted by myself and my colleagues. in the study we compared a group of abused women who were murdered by their partner or ex-partner to another group of abused women who were not. controlling for other factors we

found that gun access or ownership increased the risk of homicide over and above prior domestic violence by 5.4 times. gun access was the strongest risk factor for an abused woman to be killed by her partner or ex-partner. when the perpetrator committed suicide after killing his partner, it increased the gun -- gun ownership increased the chances of this homicide-suicide by an adjusted odds ratio of 13. neither of those studies found evidence that women frequently used firearms to defend themselves against abuse or that access to a firearm reduces the risk of homicide for the woman victim. in leaving out abusive dating partners, current federal firearm prohibitions ignore the perpetrators of a large and growing share of intimate partner homicides. the u.s. department of justice data shows that the share of domestic violence homicides committed by dating partners has

been rising for three decades and boyfriends now commit more homicides than do spouses. the supplemental homicide reports does not accurately code for ex-boyfriends, and this is a category that is also growing. estimating from our study we find that approximately 300 to 500 female intimate partner homicides each year should be added to the approximately 1,000 already counted in those supplemental homicide reports. bill 1290, the protecting domestic violence and stalking victims act would expand our domestic violence laws to include both former and current dating partners who together represented 48% of those male domestic violence perpetrators in our study and, therefore, is an extremely important way to keep women safe and to save lives. there's also evidence of state

laws to strengthen -- reduce intimate partner homicides. two separate important studies, one of the 46 of the largest cities in the united states and one of state-level data, found that state statutes restricting those under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing our possessing firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide driven by a reduction in those committed by firearms. a study also found state laws that prohibit firearm possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders along with entering state domestic violence restraining orders into that federal database reduced into mat partner homicide of women by firearms by 12 to 13% and decreased overall intimate partner homicide by 10%. in conclusion, women who suffer abuse are among the most important for society to protect. congress has an opportunity to do so by strengthening the laws to keep domestic abusers from

getting guns. ample scientific evidence also shows that in doing so you will save lives. i want to end with a quote from a woman that i interviewed who is the mother of one of the women who was killed in our study. and she said please let her story be told. don't let her death be for nothing. thank you. >> thank you, dr. campbell. dr. malcolm. >> first i'd like to thank the committee for inviting me. it's a real honor to be present at this important hearing. i think that we can all agree that we have the same goals here, that we want to protect victims of domestic violence and more generally we're interested in public safety. the current laws on the books are not perfect, but they have the great virtue of according with longstanding traditions of american law by protecting the rights of everyone concerned,

rights that the supreme court defines as deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, fundamental to our scheme of order and liberty. with due respect to chairman whitehouse, these bills that are behind this hearing do do violence to the right of the second amendment, fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and most importantly i think to do process, providing due process in the normal way. i'd like to first start with some statistics to put this whole debate in context. a fact that is very seldom advertised is that homicides in this country have been down sharply for the last 20 years as well as other violent crime. the last time that the crime rate for serious crime, murder, rape, robbery and assault, was this low, gasoline was 29 cents

a gallon, and the average american working person was earning $5,807. it's hard to remember gas at 29 cents a gallon. the rate of family violence which is much more the focus of this hearing has also fallen between 1993 and 2002 and continues to fall. only one in ten violent victimizations involve family violence. most family violence is simple assault. less than one-half of one percent of the victims are killed. the proportion of female homicides during this time period, women who are killed by guns is also down, but women killed by other means has gone up. the blumenthal and klobuchar bills present various problems

for the right of the individuals to keep and bear arms, for the protection against unreasonable search and seizure and due process. there's this new focus on stalking expanding to non-cohabiting individuals and involving not only serious incidents of actual violence, but bullying, a wide range of other acts under the definition of harassment which can be verbal and very vague and seems to often tend to grow depending on what you regard as harassment. large numbers of people who are likely to be con viced or might be convicted of simply verbally harassing somebody might lose the right to have a firearm. the most concerning thing i think is that these -- the change in the temporary restraining order, the temporary restraining order would mean that the person who is alleging

that they are endangered, they file for this after their mere allegation can send the police to the person that they are citing's home searching for guns or any other weapon that they find without any kind of a hearing. >> sometime later there would be a hearing in which they would be allowed to produce some kind of evidence to the contrary.

the other aspect that is troubling is making this retroactive. or had a temporary restraining order against them would lose their right to be armed indefinitely. many people who have accepted plea bargains on the assumption that they knew what that entailed bargains on the assumption that they knew what that entailed -- the intention there to do good and protect women but i think both of these bills have the wrong approach. it's wrong to deprive people of their basic rights and it's wrong to deprive people of the full opportunity treated as if they were guilty and afterwards things are sorted out. i would like to just conclude with the majority opinion

written by justice scalia and heller where he ends by saying the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. there are other and better way that is women can be protected without having to violate their rights or the right -- excuse me, the rights of everyone in the process. thank you. >> we now turn to sheriff shmailing. thank you for being here. >> thank you. thank you for hosting this hearing today. it's quite an honor to be here before you today. i'm the sheriff in racine county, wisconsin. i've been a l officer for aw en officer for 20 years. i have seen firsthand the tragic

events firsthand. a tragedy that changed my career, back in 2004, violently abused and left for dead by her ex-husband. after three years of a violently abusive marriage, terri had the courage to divorce her husband, taken out multiple restraining orders during this timeframe. on that horrible day, very cold january day in 2004, he beat her with a baseball bat in the head and as she tried to fight back, he then threatened her with a .38 caliber handgun, bound and gaged her, filled a garbage can full of snow, pushed her in there and placed her in an unheated storage locker for 26 hours. my partner and i were the lead investigators on this particular case and through some great breaks and great luck and blessing from above, we were able to rescue terry before she

died. as a result of this ordeal, she had a miscarriage and lost all ten of her toes due to frostbite. she has been a tremendous advocate for victims of abuse over a decade since she was nearly killed at gunpoint. we've become very close since then. gun violence as they seem to go hand in hand. sitting here today, i've been moved by his sister's story. i'm proud to say that in racine county we're the first in the state to have a full-time domestic violence specialist. we work closely with domestic violence victims to see how we can best protect them. any cop will tell you that domestic violence calls are the most dangerous calls that law enforcement officers will respond to. last thing that the victim needs and my officers need is a dangerous abuser armed with lethal weapons. they often threaten to shoot my

deputies and, in fact, according to the fbi statistics, 150 law enforcement officers have been killed in action while responding to domestic disturbances. i'm proud to have worked on a bill in wisconsin earlier this year called the safe act that ensures guns are kept out of the hands of domestic abusers. it was passed with bipartisan majority and signed by our republican governor, scott walker. this first bill i'm asking you to pass today is protecting violence and stalking victims act 1290. this bill will close a loophole that allows abusive boyfriends to buy and have guns simply because they're not married to their victims and it would also block people from stalking convictions from having guns. dangerous boyfriends can be just as scary as dangerous husbands. they hit just as hard and they fire their weapons with the same deadly force. according to the fbi data, more women are killed in america by abusive boyfriends than their

abusive spouses. just a couple of hours from racine county, cheryl was killed. she was shot with her own gun. according to the news report she had been seeking a restraining order at the time of the killing. cases like cheryl's, a restraining order is not good enough. if you've never been married to an abuser, federal law will likely not stop him from buying and purchasing a gun. the second bill i'm asking you to pass today would be gun buyers who shop with unlicensed sellers. federal law prohibits them from buying guns but only requires them to pass a background check if they shop with a dealer. the hole in the law means that a wife beater can slip through the cracks and buying a gun by finding a seller who does not own a gun store. this is exactly what happened in our state. tyrona darr had been convicted of battery not once, but twice.

he was legally prohibited from possessing a gun because of a restraining order. so, instead of shopping at a gun dealer, he found an ad for a 9 millimeter glock in a local newspaper, reached out to the seller. they agreed to meet at a hardware store. there's no background check. though the seller did ask this question, and i quote, you're not going to go out and kill someone, are you? tyrone adair used that gun on a horrific murdering spree. he killed both of his children, ages 1 and 2 at the time, and both of their mothers. we see the terror abusers create when they're armed, the impact on their wives, girlfriends and children. we have a community of about 200,000 people. and if my officers were on the street working closely with these very citizens we're sworn to protect i want to know that our laws are doing everything we can to keep the guns out of

abusive hands. i've made it a priority to talk to victims. i've seen the escalation over the years, yelling, battery and, unfortunately, homicide. when an abuser has a gun, victims will tell me, sheriff, it's not a question of if he will use that weapon against me. it's a matter of when. i'm asking you today to stand up against abuse by fixing our out-of-date laws and passing clear, common sense legislation. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much, sheriff. >> ten minutes into -- >> happy birthday to your son. >> thank you. >> it's ten minutes in. >> we'll go ahead and hear from judge mccaffrey and we may break after that to go get the two votes in. i want to wait till the very end of the vote. we have to catch the end of one vote and the beginning of another, so judge mccaffrey.

>> good morning. >> your microphone, please. >> it says talk. i should have known that. thank you for the opportunity to address your members of the committee to talk about the growing epidemic of domestic violence and the two bills before you. the above bills look to strengthen current federal investigation laws to bring them more in line with the current laws that many states have, dealing with crimes of violence toward women and same-sex partners. clearly laudible goal, strengthening such laws would seem to be an even more laudible goal. i spent most of my adult life in law enforcement. those included 20 years as a fellow police officer, ten years as a trial judge, four in the appealate courts. i've dealt with domestic violence at literally every level of our system. sadly, born of experience, i can say our law enforcement community finds itself as a reactive not a